Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm glad to hear you agree that we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels, to the tune of half a trillion dollars per year or so worldwide. That sounds like a fantastic idea.

...Or, were you only suggesting we stop subsidizing the things you don't like?

edit: you edited your comment while I was writing my reply. Had your comment had the phrase "the greens" in it to begin with, I wouldn't've bothered replying to either of your comments.




to the tune of half a trillion dollars per year or so worldwide

Which works out to what per kWh? And what's the comparable number for wind? Solar? Or even wind and solar combined?


Well, let's see if we can figure it out.

The most comprehensive report on this to date seems to be http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/relative_energy_... (pdf). It both supports your point and contradicts your conclusion, noting for example, "Readers should exercise caution when comparing one energy type's subsidy estimate with another...", and, "Whether to reform a given subsidy is not necessarily indicated by its total or per-unit magnitude alone."

That said, they estimate a 1.7c/kWh subsidy for nuclear, a 5c/kWh subsidy for renewables (excluding hydroelectricity), a 5.1c/kWh for biofuels, and a 0.8c/kWh subsidy for fossil fuels. They allow for a lot of room in their estimates, with cautions all over the place that hard numbers really aren't readily available, and so on, but let's say that's within an order of magnitude of correct.

So far, there's a solid argument that alternative energy developments are only being propped up by governments, which I assume is your position.

But! There's a catch. Their estimates are based on a single year of energy production -- 2007.

The average wind turbine has a life expectancy of around twenty years (http://www.windmeasurementinternational.com/wind-turbines/om...). The average solar panel has a life expectancy of maybe 25 or 30 years (http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/). The average barrel of oil has a life expectancy of a single combustion engine or oil product.

If we could do something simple like apply a 1/20 multiplier to the subsidy given per kWh for renewables -- and I really have no idea if that's honest or not, since their paper is not as comprehensive when it comes to their sources and calculations -- but if that were possible, then renewables are actually receiving a smaller subsidy per kWh than fossil fuels, produced over the lifetime of the energy product.

But, y'know, this is all really far afield from the original argument to begin with.

It is inarguable that fossil fuels are getting more expensive and should be expected to continue to get more expensive. You yourself rang the alarm over expensive energy in another comment. And we can probably at least agree that cheap energy fueled the industrial age. So, what if it were possible to eventually make energy even cheaper, if we invest in its development now?

Is that really such a terrible idea, investing in the future?

Actually, you don't have to answer that. I guess the label "green" fits me as well as any other label you'd like to use, so I'm de facto wrong about everything anyway.


Ok, I'll change it to "environmentalists," but somehow I don't think that'll help much.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: